is_amicable_number

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'checks' a number, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling for invalid inputs (e.g., negative numbers), performance characteristics, or what the output looks like (e.g., boolean or detailed result). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a single sentence that directly states the purpose. The domain/category addition is brief and relevant. There's no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of other documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (checking amicable numbers involves mathematical logic), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what amicable numbers are, provide examples, describe the return value, or address edge cases. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves too much undefined for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with a single parameter 'n' of type integer. The description doesn't add any semantic information about 'n', such as valid ranges (e.g., positive integers only), examples, or what 'amicable' means in context. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a number is amicable (part of an amicable pair).' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('number'), and the domain/category context helps clarify it's about arithmetic special numbers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_amicable_pairs', which might cause confusion about when to use each.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'find_amicable_pairs' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for single-number checks or part of broader analyses. The domain/category hint is minimal and doesn't address usage context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.